Trying to pin the African slave trade on Muslims is kinds sorta like blaming the Jews for trying to elect Hitler in 33.
[/quote]
Actually Egyptians/Arabs/Sudanese Arabs have been practicing slavery continuously for thousands of years. Western Europeans were only involved for a short period, they were the first to abolish slavery and the early history of their slave trading involved whites who were treated considerably worse than expensive black slaves. None of this has anything to do with Jews voting for Hitler in '33 or whatever you are jabbering about BTW.
And it was West Germany only.
This is the sort of English up with which I shall not put!
Your numbers are nonsense. Try less than half that then give the rest to Egypt. Also give Egypt another billion dollars and wipe a billion more of its debts to the US in the last year alone.
There was no ‘African Holocaust’ dickhead.
Considerably less than the number of white slaves.
Most of those in the numbers I put up above are Catholic Martyrs…and the Church condemned racial slavery back in 1435. I think you’ll want to refer your comment to your local heretic. :)[/quote]
Yeah ok… And the Spanish Conquistadores did not enslave people or practice genocide…[/quote]
I don’t believe – though I maybe mistaken, if I am…please show me a source – the Conquistadores were know for enslaving people. However, yes, we did civilize the Aztecs who were an all together a heathen nation, who frequently killed their own and practiced cannibalism.
P.S. I’ll ignore your ad hominem attack as you seem to not know any more details of the situation than what the MSM happens to say out of the side of their necks.
Most of those in the numbers I put up above are Catholic Martyrs…and the Church condemned racial slavery back in 1435. I think you’ll want to refer your comment to your local heretic. :)[/quote]
Yeah ok… And the Spanish Conquistadores did not enslave people or practice genocide…[/quote]
I don’t believe – though I maybe mistaken, if I am…please show me a source – the Conquistadores were know for enslaving people. However, yes, we did civilize the Aztecs who were an all together a heathen nation, who frequently killed their own and practiced cannibalism.
P.S. I’ll ignore your ad hominem attack as you seem to not know any more details of the situation than what the MSM happens to say out of the side of their necks.[/quote]
What you say about the Aztecs is true but Hernando Cortes was a reckless adventurer who acted with utter perfidy in his dealings with the Aztecs AND his allies the Tlaxcalteca. He was very Machiavellian.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What you say about the Aztecs is true but Hernando Cortes was a reckless adventurer who acted with utter perfidy in his dealings with the Aztecs AND his allies the Tlaxcalteca. He was very Machiavellian.[/quote]
The only kind of person who could have sailed halfway across the world to an unknown land and in such a short time established total dominance over a very entrenched and very powerful enemy would have to be a warrior, a politician, and an all around badass.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What you say about the Aztecs is true but Hernando Cortes was a reckless adventurer who acted with utter perfidy in his dealings with the Aztecs AND his allies the Tlaxcalteca. He was very Machiavellian.[/quote]
The only kind of person who could have sailed halfway across the world to an unknown land and in such a short time established total dominance over a very entrenched and very powerful enemy would have to be a warrior, a politician, and an all around badass.
Cortes was all of these, most of all the third. [/quote]
I agree. I guess I was trying to convey that I don’t see him as a model Christian.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What you say about the Aztecs is true but Hernando Cortes was a reckless adventurer who acted with utter perfidy in his dealings with the Aztecs AND his allies the Tlaxcalteca. He was very Machiavellian.[/quote]
The only kind of person who could have sailed halfway across the world to an unknown land and in such a short time established total dominance over a very entrenched and very powerful enemy would have to be a warrior, a politician, and an all around badass.
Cortes was all of these, most of all the third. [/quote]
I agree. I guess I was trying to convey that I don’t see him as a model Christian.[/quote]
Certainly not. If Spain had sent nothing but peaceful friars they’d have quickly been sacrificed and eaten by the Aztecs and history would be something other than it is now.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I agree. I guess I was trying to convey that I don’t see him as a model Christian.[/quote]
Matters what you consider a model Christian.
We have had the meekest monks and the most terrible Crusaders (in this case Conquistador), both having the ability to sin greatly. Just because one lives by the sword does not mean he is not model. Justice is an act of charity after all.
I wouldn’t quite go that far. You’re getting into the old ‘nurture’ vs ‘nature’ argument. You raise some good points though. In fact your comments appear to be fairly well reasoned. That lie down seems to have done you some good.[/quote]
People come across as much smarter when they’re not exhibiting or attempting to rationalise their Jew hatred.[/quote]
I think the same could be said of those rationalising their hate of muslims
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The simple inescapable historical truth is that the Arabs, almost exclusively Muslim, have been and still are THE major leaguers in the slave trading biz. Everyone else is AAA at best. White slave traders barely if at all barely even made it out of AA ball.[/quote]
Depends on what you consider Major league. Arabs have had the most but the biggest most powerful country in the world was built on the back of slaves. Otherwise corporate softball players are the real Major League.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The simple inescapable historical truth is that the Arabs, almost exclusively Muslim, have been and still are THE major leaguers in the slave trading biz. Everyone else is AAA at best. White slave traders barely if at all barely even made it out of AA ball.[/quote]
Depends on what you consider Major league. Arabs have had the most but the biggest most powerful country in the world was built on the back of slaves. Otherwise corporate softball players are the real Major League.[/quote]
So, the extent of heinousness of having slaves is judged on how much gets done with those slaves?
I’d also like to hear some more about how the US “was built on the back of slaves.” That seems a dubious claim to me.[/quote]
I was going to question the US ‘built on the back of slaves’. The Northern states had abolished slavery by the beginning of the 19th century(New Jersey was the last in 1804 abolishing new slaves and slowly phasing out existing slavery over the following decades.)
Also, slaves were not used as the manpower of the industrial revolution and it was the industrial revolution and the industrial power of the Northern states that made the US the most powerful country on earth. Now the question of whether slave labour provided the capital to fuel the industrial revolution is a different one. The book ‘Capitalism and Slavery’ by Eric Williams attempted to make that case.
